Civilizing batson

Iowa Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1561-1583

  Leong, Nancy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860148706     PISSN: 00210552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. See, e.g., Pamela S. Karlan, Race, Rights, and Remedies in Criminal Adjudication, 96 MICH. L. REV. 2001 (1998);
2. Daryl J. Levinson, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 857, 858 (1999).
3. Nancy Leong, Making Rights, 92 B.U. L. REV. 405 (2012).
4. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 309-12 (1879).
5. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975);
6. Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502-04 (1972);
7. Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946).
8. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93-94 (1986).
9. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995) (per curiam).
10. However, "assumptions[] which arise solely from the jurors' race" will not survive step two. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98.
11. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338-39 (2003).
12. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 251-52 (2005);
13. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 ("The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.").
14. Kermit Roosevelt III, Aspiration and Underenforcement, 119 HARV. L. REV. F. 193, 194 (2006).
15. See Jeffrey Bellin & Junichi P. Semitsu, Widening Batson's Net To Ensnare More Than the Unapologetically Bigoted or Painfully Unimaginative Attorney, 96 CORNELL L. REV. 1075, 1092-93 (2011). As Bellin and Semitsu explain, "[T]o the extent the defense is initially successful in a Batson challenge, a judicial opinion will almost never reflect it; prosecutors will have no desire to appeal a successful defense challenge when a defendant is convicted, and no ability to do so when the defendant is acquitted." Id.
16. Cognitive bias is a widely accepted phenomenon. See generally, e.g., COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: PROGRESS ON A PIVOTAL THEORY IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Eddie Harmon-Jones & Judson Mills eds., 1999);
17. JUDGMENT UNDER UNCERTAINTY: HEURISTICS AND BIASES (Daniel Kahneman et al. eds., 1982). Research has also linked implicit bias to judges and the judicial system.
18. See, e.g., Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, The Law of Implicit Bias, 94 CALIF. L. REV. 969 (2006);
19. Jerry Kang, Trojan Horses of Race, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1489 (2005);
20. Jeffrey J. Rachlinski et al., Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?, 84 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1195 (2009).
21. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 431 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
22. See Jennifer E. Laurin, Rights Translation and Remedial Disequilibration in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1002, 1076-77 (2010).
23. Jennifer E. Laurin, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Rodriguez v. City of Houston, and Remedial Rationing, 109 COLUM. L. REV. SIDEBAR 82, 83 (2009).
24. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
25. See Nelson Tebbe & Robert L. Tsai, Constitutional Borrowing, 108 MICH. L. REV. 459, 511-21 (2010).
26. Carter v. Jury Comm'n, 396 U.S. 320, 320-30 (1970) (footnote omitted).
27. Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995).
28. Complaint ¶ ¶ 1-2, Hall v. Valeska, No. 1:11-cv-00894-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2011).
29. Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979).
30. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114 (1976).
31. I have only found two such cases: Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1995)
32. and the recently filed suit in Hall v. Valeska, No. 1:11-cv-00894-WHA-CSC (M.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2011). See supra notes 32-37.
33. See, e.g., Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 618-31 (1991) (holding that prohibition against racially discriminatory peremptory challenges applies to jury selection in civil cases as well as criminal cases).
34. See, e.g., Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 1997);
35. Washam v. Stesis, Civil Action No. 07-2907, 2008 WL 2600310 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2008).
36. Id. at 1091 (capitalization altered from original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing People v. Hamilton, 200 P.3d 898, 929-37 (Cal. 2009)).
37. See, e.g., Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1895) (explaining that the primary purpose of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is to provide "an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief").
38. see also Russell D. Covey, The Unbearable Lightness of Batson: Mixed Motives and Discrimination in Jury Selection, 66 MD. L. REV. 279, 322 (2007) ("Batson challenges occur in a virtual evidentiary vacuum-there is extremely little evidence available even in a full-blown Batson hearing to shed much light on the question of whether an explanation is credible.").
39. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 (2003)
40. (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991) (plurality opinion)).
41. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 413-14 (1991).
42. See, e.g., James M. Binnall, Convicts in Court: Felonious Lawyers Make a Case for Including Convicted Felons in the Jury Pool, 73 ALB. L. REV. 1379 app. at 1436-40 (2010).
43. Powers, 499 U.S. at 409.
44. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 310 (1922).
45. Powers, 499 U.S. at 407.
46. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 48-59 (1992) (holding Batson applicable to public defenders).
47. See, e.g., Reynolds v. City of Little Rock, 893 F.2d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 1990) ("Batson['s]. .. rule of non-discrimination applies only to governmental actors, without distinguishing criminal and civil legal proceedings.").
48. See, e.g., Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 623-28 (1991) (holding that Batson applies to governmental actors in civil trials).
49. See, e.g., Gary A. Harki, New State Law Means Recorded Consent Needed for Car Searches, CHARLESTON GAZETTE (May 2, 2010), http://www.wvgazette.com/News/ 201005020346 (explaining state law requiring written or recorded audio consent for searches of vehicles in West Virginia).
50. See, e.g., Barry C. Feld, Juveniles' Competence To Exercise Miranda Rights: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice, 91 MINN. L. REV. 26, 72 (2006) (reproducing standard Miranda waiver form for St. Paul Police Department).
51. See, e.g., The Simpsons: Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie (20th Century Fox television broadcast Nov. 3, 1992) (Homer tells Bart: "The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races" in order to avoid jury duty.).
52. See, e.g., Vikram David Amar, Jury Service as Political Participation Akin to Voting, 80 CORNELL L. REV. 203 (1995);
53. Sherman J. Clark, The Character of Direct Democracy, 13 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 341 (2004);
54. George C. Harris, The Communitarian Function of the Criminal Jury Trial and the Rights of the Accused, 74 NEB. L. REV. 804, 809 (1995).
55. Carter v. Jury Comm'n, 396 U.S. 320, 330 (1970).
56. U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
57. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424 (1976).
58. See, e.g., Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342-43 (2009);
59. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 355-56 (3d Cir. 1999).
60. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
61. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983).
62. See, e.g., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Of Justiciability, Remedies, and Public Law Litigation: Notes on the Jurisprudence of Lyons, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1 (1984);
63. Linda E. Fisher, Caging Lyons: The Availability of Injunctive Relief in Section 1983 Actions, 18 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 1085 (1987);
64. Laura E. Little, It's About Time: Unravelling Standing and Equitable Ripeness, 41 BUFF. L. REV. 933 (1993).
65. See, e.g., Adam Liptak, Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades, N.Y. TIMES (July 24, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/ 25roberts.html?pagewanted=all.
66. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (explaining that a showing of municipal policy and custom is required for municipal liability).
67. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650 (1980).
68. See Monell, 436 U.S. 658.
69. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988).
70. See, e.g., City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989);
71. Thompson v. Connick, 578 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009), rev'd, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011).
72. See, e.g., Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011);
73. Amnesty Am. v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 127-29 (2d Cir. 2004).
74. See, e.g., Dougherty, 654 F.3d at 900;
75. Amnesty Am., 361 F.3d at 127.
76. Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 1995).
77. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 414 (1991).